around 3:15 thank you. >> proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. commissioners, we left off under regular calendar on items 14, 15 a there e 1500 mission street project case numbers 2014 e and reservation enhancing and puc a

and the certification of the environmental impact report adoption of sentencing finding general plan amendment and planning code amendment downtown project authorization and shadow determination respectfully. >> commissioners before we start i want to reintroduce you to a planner that come back to the planning michael lee are not only for the eir he was with the department from march of 97 until 2007 he started with us when he was 10-year-old (laughter) and contact in debt of 2014 awhile with the department he worked on major property washington and the north america a building a private sector working with a number of

substantial projects like park merced and michael has been with us for about 2 1/2 years and back with the environmental planning group welcome. >> welcome. >> commissioner vice president richards and members of the commission michael lee planning department staff this agenda item the final certification of eir for 1500 mission street project the department published the draft eir on november 9th and the draft eir public housing public hearings the public comment period evident in 2017 and the department published the responses to comments document on march 9, 2017 during public comment on the previous agenda items the sea

level rise action plan sue hester commented how much satisfies are affect the ground water levels and the liquor if i believe soils this is the same comment she submitted on the draft eir and the responses document addresses that on page 26 and 27 since the rdt document was published not received any additional comments and our draft motion certifies you additional that i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you public comment. >> oh, we should hear the project they were called up tonight and tilly chang planning department staff i am joined by

folks from the department of real estate and the director of real estate john updyke is here to make remarks i'll pick up where he leaves off. >> thank you very much tina john updyke director of real estate. and the zoning administrator was going to have this role but couldn't do that i'll do my best this project is a culmination of a decade research for one time consolidate city services so for the efficient deliveries inform our constituents in the san francisco it is a rare opportunity a 2 mrs. acre walking distance of city hall will be our society of government we needed something close to city hall that gives us

a scale primarily the footprints of this building at almost an acre in size and sufficient to how the 3 collar density bonus program the public utilities commission and planning and rec and park joining public works and dbi with those departments and all the permitting functions with the development and other permitting activities a one time center is achievable we're existed to bring this forward particularly as a public-private partnership with our partners on this vulnerable related california so this relationship was related follows two amuse approvals by the board of supervisors that are contractual and look forward to this moving forward to return to the board and ballet our conceptual

obligations that are related i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> but that gives us many context why this is important to the city thank you. >> thank you >> taking care of again planning department staff this item has been before you a couple of times as a informational presentation and again as a public hearing for the chris and is ordinances i'll keep my remarks brief the the item before you is 1500 mission street project as long as goodwill will definition and definition a warehouse building for two buildings a 16, 7 footing 70 foot tall and the second a 39 attire at all

central tower that includes 5 hundred and 50 dwelling units of which 20 percent will be affordable up to 38 thousand square feet of retail with mission street and van ness and 11 wells the block alley the vehicular and bicycle parking spaces is requested by the members of the board during the project sponsors are the blasphemy parking can be shared between the office buildings and the residents the project sponsor will talk about the design but first a few regulatory issues it needs several action by the commission first, the adoption of ceqa findings with the project and staff made a few minor changes to the m m rp and specifically

the management plan and the location falls on the planning department and mp a and not project sponsor second as mentioned during the previous hearing the tax zoning map are associated with the project accordingly the commission must adapt a recommendation go for the general plan amendment and the planning code zoning map please note one addition to the legislation initiation on december 15th this is is with respect to the 11 street to insure the vehicular is assessable and the few and far between will allow a double parking an 11 street rather than what the code permit to the extent feasible the shared nlgz for the office use will be provided in the report please

note the ordinances are under review by the city attorney legislative team that may have minor comments and request the resolution reflect authorization of non-substantive editorial and formatting from the city attorney's office prior to the commission to the board of supervisors third, the commission must grant downtown project authorization for the action for the wind current and on-street parking loading and compliance is described in the case report in short the department buildings the exceptions are wander and meetings meets the criteria i have a couple of edits for the introduction of paragraph the one/200 and 40 height and bulk district too this has been added back in and additionally the findings of section 45 i mentioned regarding the vehicular on 11 street and

finally the project has shadow determination that with the representation the general manager the rec and park the net new shadow and the property open 11 street made for the acquisitions the shadow motion has been revised that is not a part that has been designated acquisition and subject to the review to date one letter of support for spur and one member of the public that expressed employment opportunity and no other public comment has been related to the entitlement but the staff hazard received public comment not draft eir we support and recommend approval that concludes my presentation. but myself and other colleagues are here.

>> thank you open this up to public comment oh, i'm sorry please. >> hi, thank you john and tiny i'm mark and on behalf of greg hartman and michael and the rest of my colleagues i'm happy to share that project can we get the screen please that project is unique and fantastic collaboration with the department of real estate, dbi, public works and our client related california versus the planning department and think the project has gotten better each step of the collaboration the project start with the real estate concept that john described and moved to 3 city departments most responsible for the built with the homes in the

heart of city the project site is about 2 and a half acres on van ness on the west and the north side is defined by other one and thirty foot party wall in the mta so an early principle was the specific office building that has assess an south van ness and 11 will be potential connected to one south van ness but be assessable from mission street this led to the l shaped parcel in blue and in the east side of the site with the southern side given to the residential program and new public spaces between the two spaces those open spaces connect south van ness so 11 street and the building assessable from mission street as well and this creates a new public circulation network for those buildings

around that the building massing is arranged in a series of height from two stories at the corner of 11 and mission up to 9 stories on downtown van ness and 39 stories for the residential tower interestingly that composition representatives three hundred thousand square feet than the height and bulk we're calling this the forum that runs from east a west and connecting the streets through and past the lobby directly visibly aligned a stack of atriums we're cob u calling the collaborative the first connects the lobby as john mentioned their setback significantly that creates an open space for a

childcare facility on the third floor the residential building at mission and south van ness starts with a four and 10 story street frontage podium the podium on the seasons are both setback from south van ness by 15 feet that allows a significant wind companion for strong winds on the site and then the residential tower is placed above that has a dramatic open corner 2, 3, 4 which a series of steps to the terrace are revealed a have you from otis street this is a simple sloping open corner is the hub and creates a gateway to the specifically further up the block the view into the forum and collaborative scene we're comp the to divide

the office buildings so we think that project most important contribution to the neighborhood at the ground in the neighborhood that are suffering from lack of on the ground and at the corner that mission and 11 the project starts that dialogue with the retention of the existing clock tower of the building as well as the first couple of structural along mission street frontage in addition 3 more bay of the facade and the building transitioned to scale but more transparent which are more appropriate to inside of them and secondary entrance to the building the lower scales step to the office tower and then looking at the 11 street elevation at the desirability the goal to balance the

character that is provided by the cboc colonel building with the similar scales more appropriate to the civic buildings to activate the industry we walk around the project to the west on mission street the corner is marked by a series of flexible retail bases and coming around to evaporates you see at the third floor the large wind companion it comes out from the building and creates a very unusual public space close to thirty feet high with a sidewalk and defined on the east side by the rail and residential building and on the west we a syria's series of element with the street trees and other things the companion is tied up to be very light and luminous layers

and perforated metal to balance the light and shadows on the space below that at the forum the entrance is marked by an element we're calling a civic - and also the departments the stewards of that the forum is lined by right side on a series of opening glass doors that led into the facility many people i think will enter there this from the forum and the 11 street so some will drive and arrive to the validity drop off and tina mentioned those

at the grove the open spaces are equated on both sides leading to the stack of atriums with the office building lobby that led up to the permit center it takes 43 square feet of the entire second floor and the open simple design connected through the atrium with service benches and other things lynn the perimeter that typical office space with the childcare facility that opens to the roof garden and the typical workspace of the building is are reilly to draw on the transparent and the informal collaboration and connecting departments finally the office tower is clad in a

eloquent glass bottom with the penetration and balconies the building structural grid is expressed in a frame of ceramic frame and it is vertical proportions are by transitioned finances those finances will catch the light from dentist directions and give it a soft luminous flow by contrast it is slightly rougher materials the majority of building is clad in a multiple colored cushion wall and the structure frame is expressed but the nature the residential use is a varying partner of darker panels and footprints at the top of the residential building a perforated metal

screen coming back from the curtain wall a subtle presence and in the open corner of residential tower so when we start this project our client coined the nickname a chess because of pieces needed to be move forward around on the site i think from the collaboration with so many people in the city this project is essentially going to be more than those pieces thank you for your time and we're i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> opening to public comment on this item. >> there are no speaker cards. >> ms. hester oh. >> one speaker card. >> pauley green. >> okay. we'll have ms. hester coming up she might make

that there first oh. >> thank you commissioner vice president richards and planning commission members i'm mr. green and i operate a small business called the green reports a construction analyst and i'm here about the 1500 mission street project otherwise known as goodwill i've been denied by related california contractual commitment and that is what my complaint is about

not about the project the project as a whole i think it phenomenal and i think should be done as soon as possible, however, i don't think i should be run over by it i think i'm a native san franciscan i was born and raised here it is part of my legacy as a long time contractor before my stroke and medical health issues was a contractor here in san francisco i worked on many projects fillmore center i was a contractor on that project i helped to built that and other projects in japantown going back decades unfortunately, a stroke sidelined me i can't work so, now i'm doing construction

analyst work for example, what ms. hester brought up sub surface drainage well, that is illustrate by the project down the street about a block away one 50 van ness building a project but construction the same contractor is doing one 50 van ness i'm sure you're aware of that it is a beautiful project and when you have time go to youtube and that's where all of my work is showcased i guess i have to stop. >> you have time. >> just to be brief go to youtube and see i've videoed one

50 van ness, the new wirings eastern four documentaries and got a lot of views getting back to ms. hester's about the sub surface drainage at the one 50 van ness one the major subcontractor johnson came in and do a sub surface drainage system now your your time is up. >> i do a lot of videoing we're trying to keep the community involved but i can't. >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> okay.

>> sue hester i had a view of city hall coming out of south van ness the afternoon and i'm saying a view of the doom from the south forever but apart from that i think this is the first project not a first - that is a series of projects that you have the opportunity to report back on because a city project is one you should do that you need to monitor the wind, monitor the impacts on bicycles, 10 years ago and 5 years ago the city didn't have the emphasis on

bike transport it does today and the thing i know from just keeping my eyes open the hayes hill and the confluence of wind at the van ness, mission and market that whole area is going to be - is really dangerous and we're embarking on that plan of companions 15 hundred mission and 1500 market street and you - one of the things the planning commission should be and the planning department should evaluate is a funding mechanism out of these projects

a for keeping up the wind model, the wind model should be owned by the planning department and by the environmental review not a tool of developers not s o m or someone else the planning department should keep it up and funded by every project that comes through and the data kept up by the planning department but also you need to put on requirement that within 6 months of completion of those some phasing level you go back and look at this seriously at the wind condition and the bicycle impacts if you are creating a situation where there is no measurement after the building is approved on the impacts of bicyclists you're under cutting your own eir and your own

rhetorical how to change people getting around i'm not sure you need to have report back condition on this project this city project thank you. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> thank you andy townsend commissioners and mr. brown i'm here to talk about 15 hundred briefly you heard i've expressed concerns of workforce and activities there i have that same concern and walk through so don't related california and they've engaged our company and firm of our consultants, llc to work on the project in regards to workforce to see to it that community members have full opportunity to

work and train on this project as well as working with the local subcontractor and in fact, we're already working with them only two other projects that's why this was a natural for the two rad projects and in fact, one of the our local contractors is here he's wearing white a paternity worked think a responding b pits plaza and doing the interior painting and did that job when we moved to west side they wanted him to take the exterior and interior and on those jobs he'll in about the mix of trying to get work we've excited about that opportunity i have a long time even thought that what workforce looks like should be part of eir one of the things that disturbs my environment i see people in

the community not working and living the kind of life they should be entitled to live this is extremely important you saw the article in the chronicle that talked about the disparity in employment within white san franciscans and african-american san franciscans it is disgraph full 84 of the whites in the city are employed and 57 percent of african-americans are employed in excuse we're not doing the job so we're excited about this project really recommend that you approve that and we look forward to what will happen here thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item this portion of the

hearing is closed commissioner moore. >> would you mind explaining to commission for the drawing the changes that ms. tilly chang mentioned a combining of the two right ways. >> clear cuts. >> switch to the screen f if you can see it on the top right of plan a two-way ramp up and down to the northern half of the garage toward further down 11 street the opportunity for a second ramp here the project was originally designed with a two-way ramp one for the office building and the

other building the planning department staff and others raised the question whether or not other project will work less ramps on 11 street and clubbed that was a possibility an alternative that the residential ramp further south ramp so all cars will come in as well as office toledo the ramp at the top of the page on the 11 street side the residential cars will exit through this so that is subject to the ability of operators and owners of the building to make that work not an earthquakeal issue but the building is designed with a two ramp or one way ram. >> the suggestion to combine the two ramps. >> no, no proposal to further combine sorry no proposal that

i'm aware have to further combine the ramps but two ramps each two-way or one be one way ramp i'm surprised the ramps near market street at the veteran of 11 is very close to the corner unless i didn't reading drawing properly and on today's rules not do that one effects the way you perspective the corners and 11 street being worked out a major street rather than the driveway to a suburban office building not in consideration to move the ram away from the corner. >> no it is not. >> an operational issue more than anything else. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i guess question i have i guess for staff in terms of ms.

hester's comments that is the first large building the height limit we knew that was aaron a center of an additional height that was formulated and went have not approval process what is the process on consulting a body of knowledge around the buildings constructed or planned to be constructed and ho how they relate to the future eirs and a future project approval. >> michael planning department staff for the hub we are going to do comprehensive wind tunnel testing for all of the projects that will be part of that plan we have a previous wind tunnel telephones from other projects within this area and we often consultant those results to make sure that the understanding for any particular

project. >> will be built. >> right. >> is there any look back we thought that was going to happen once they're built to see if it is true to ms. hester's point i'm asking i'm learning as well is there a look back hey we're on the money or weren't. >> historically this intersection has been windy to the results. >> are not stripping. >> to the comfort level. >> pardon me. >> there's a comfort level established just you're under or over it. >> for wind comfortable a standard and the planning code under section 309 allows a project sponsor to seek exceptions there are instances of the comfort standard for hazardous wind no exception.

>> okay. go ahead please. lisa acting environmental review officer if any post construction modeling that is not a mitigation measure for samples for this project the project will not have a significant wind impact heart of hub analysis we're cal works there because a large number of projects over time in the area we're looking at how we might have a phase gathering of information about wind conditions because of the fact that as we assess wind impacts for a structure their dependent what the environment and the surrounding so the wind impact methodology is limited in the facilities to forecast the exact conditions had a build out we're looking at that like the

pier 70 over time there will be post construction monitoring for successful projects. >> sure so is they've been a situation we thought we were within a comfort level but in the end we per seated it you, however, missed the mark. >> that's a good question don't know the answer. >> the 706 mixed was one of the situations that building underwent a series of redesign they went into the wind tunnel 6 or 7 times to test the design modifications to look at the wind conditions. >> in the end were they right. >> frankly with respect to wind not done post construction. >> we've done it with other things but. >> would that be valuable.

>> the point that lisa was making that because there is so many other stuff coming from the district my makes sense for the plan for the whole area rather than could that just for this building that will change as well as it will change again. >> okay. >> that's my recommendation. >> great commissioner moore. >> we need to look at the history of winds velocity it was started in california in berkley in a very kind of manual way a long time in the architectural department and developed through the san jose and 80s hsa as that became more computer and other tools all the way down to where we are today their modeled in the same type of laboratory where be airport wings, etc. are

not a model the one thing that changed changing compliment the wind velocity in san francisco has increased that is more imperial that scientifically noted but early wind tunnel measuring what we do today is fine-tuned to measure what the results of multiple- it is interesting to create policy and really put it into this particular body to say that impermissible data and comparison district by district will help us to have a better presentation with better judgment how they look at increasing or decreasing buildings that have indeed building features that diminish wind a great idea and can work

with the director and environmental planning about indeed creating policy by which it originates here. >> would you support that. >> the last part. >> yes. >> basically the policy and doing it generates right here not necessarily will tell us how to do that. >> i would suggest if we do any follow-up monitoring it will not be in the development but the city. >> right. >> shouldn't be a condition of approval for a developer really on the city for the wind conditions at certain points out mou how we do that i don't know. >> i was going to make the point that we don't always keep a database of you know existing

conditions because every new project has testing of existing conditions on the ground by the time the environmental review begins and plus the projects and plus existing conditions and all the cumulative projects so what we're testing changes for over and over development that come forward we use those continuing wind studies to confirm and use them to look at adjacent projects but you know to keep a database the data and the wind conditions i think exists will be completely different as things are build out in two years every time we start an analysis we take the conditions. >> i mean, if the commission wants to direct staff to look at that we'll need to scope it out.

>> we can certainly think about that and see what it takes to monitor overflow room makes sense this is an incredible project in terms of chess terms you have a checkmate as for mr. greens issue i will suggest you talk with the project sponsor or the project sponsor agent about an appointment and hopefully connect with him and workout something not something in institution can do i'm entertaining a motion commissioner moore. >> i want to comment on the responses to the draft eir i think that they're complete and illuminating the questions i had in particular to the presentation of hearing about the building and the photos make that much bigger to move on to

say why are they doing that i appreciate it and in full support to - did you make a motion. >> i i cannot. >> sir we should talk up the certification separately. >> we should take up the action of certification of the final environmental impact report. >> item 14. >> a motion to certificate. >> second. >> thank you there is a motion that has been seconded to certificate the finally environmental impact report commissioner koppel. >> just want to make another couple of just comments on the top really impressed with the teamwork displayed by the staff related to the department of property mr. updyke impressed with the design of the building

and want to make some general comments interested in seeing the features of the building not just the you know expressway shells that allows light during the cindy but on the ground level give those buildings a little bit more via the lead and sustainable fvlz for those as well so indefinite in favor of the project thank you for all you do. >> i agree with the discussion and had many comments on this glad to see many moving long looks like it was positive on tuesday and helps the project that is great hopefully, you know i'm hearing the decision with the commissioners about ways for the city to take in house some of

the analyze we've often looked at the ceqa analysis and the development approvals for example, the wind studies that's a great idea and hopefully the mr. larkin building will be together building so collaborate all the things this great i'm going to make a couple of motions so we can move forward so i'd like to make a motion to adopt the ceqa finding excuse me - that motion was made. >> she didn't make that but we haven't certified the environmental impact report. >> oh, we've not voted. >> i'm sorry, i got lost. >> one last comment i was talking with the building inspection about the teamwork results when the planning is together again us and the general public and the staff

will move on that perfect. >> call the question. >> one last comment commissioner johnson this has a childcare center. >> i'm via existed, however, it is on the roof of the second floor can't take care of the infant and toddlers but that's fantastic i'm exist thank you to the project sponsor. >> call the question. >> on the matter of item 14 to certificate the environmental impact report commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards installment unanimously 5 to zero now you may take up the matter of project. >> commissioner johnson. >> now i stole commissioner moore's thunder like to make a combined motion to adopt the ceqa afterwards shadow findings, adapt planning code amendment

and approve the downtown project authorization. >> is that covered it all. >> secretary ionin. >> you said the shadow determination. >> i did and the planning code amendment okay. all right. then do i hear a second. >> ms. chang to make sure the commission adopt includes comments and minutes made by staff. >> and the downtown project authorization. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> great i accept the modification did you catch the general plan amendment i think she did. >> yes. >> okay. we'll make sure the motion r a through e. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the project entitlements a through e adopting the ceqa and the planning code amendment and the downtown project authorization and shadow

determination as amended by staff commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and great item 8b - philip achilles vs. the zoning administrator at 819 ellis street. an office development allocation. >> good afternoon planning department staff the the item before you seeks an office development allocation authors 17 thousand plus in the office development allocation the project is located on a 15 thousand three hundred square feet on the southeast corner of intersection of samson with the 65 height and bulk district the site is located in the bases of telegraph hill of the

northeast area plan and the waterfront special use district the site has a 3 story over-basement industrial building the building constructed in 1906 known as is venus bag building a historic landmark under the planning code as a compatible and with a - within the northeast waterfront a mouth full converts 58 thousand plus vacant manufacturing space into retail at the ground floor and 48 thousand plus of office use and duo to date one inquiry from the public requesting information how the department will insure the project is under the 50 thousand office allocation the floor area that illustrates an

amount of office use as part of restriction on the property after naval all aspects of the project the staff recommend approval with conditions that complies with the planning code the project is continent with the objectives and policies computing the northeast waterfront plan and the nob hill and in the zoning district that permits office use the project will construct 49 thousand plus in a former warehouse facilitating the contribution from industrial use to commercial use as conditioned in the northeast waterfront plan the authorization of the office use will attribute to the activity in the neighborhood and impartial is residential and others uses and it has an innovation of 4 percent of

capped office use the project sponsor is present and has prepared a presentation. >> thank you project sponsor. >> thank you, commissioners tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the project sponsor just have a few comments oxening staff report thank you to the staff for all the work into this proposal and helping us shape the proposal before you today the project provides much needed office use in a location that strongly supported by the general plan amendment in the northeast waterfront plan called for office use in the transition of waterfront to downtown where adjacent to downtown and close to levies plaza and other

offices negotiate a busy retail district the .

>> commissioners on item 171964 union street this is a conditional use authorization

commissioners before the item starts i was going to have the director read this this is a new planner david that works on my team originally from new jersey from usc and worked for a firm in los angeles before joining our team in november. >> thank you good afternoon, members of planning commission the the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail use men's clothing doing business as on 1964 union street in a vacate one thousand you plus ground floor retail use by a non-formal don't be so as the artisans within the union 40-x height and

bulk district the proposal involves interior improvement there are approximately 0 thirty existing locations all in the united states and this is the second on the location in san francisco with the other location on 55 grant avenue the formula retail is fined in the draft motion for your consideration to data letter of support from the union street and two petitions in support of request signed by 17 and feinstein community members the planning department has no letters or e-mails in opposition to the project the planning department represents to approve the request with conditions that concludes my presentation. >> thank you thank you very much project sponsor. >> hi thank you for having us. i'm the general manager for the

location. >> i'm the general manager for the location on grant so our overall concept we're an e-commerce storefronts in thirty location on a one by one basic experience we get them if i did in order for the items to be shipped directly to the consumer any questions. >> thank you thank you, very much. >> any additional - okay. >> brought some collateral. >> opening up for public comment in support of project (calling names) no comments is there any additional public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. this portion of the hearing is closed i'll start i'm a customer my size keeps on

changing i'll give you a lot of busy interesting bog this is a neat way for a future in retail we've been struggling with that you search warrant having are brick-and-mortar location and a back office with functioning i gita good way for the future a quality project and the two locates not a big deal. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much manifesting. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to go there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this with conditions commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 4 to zero and commissioners that places us on item 18, 2213

fillmore street conditional use authorizati authorization. >> hello into good afternoon david once again planning department staff the the item before you is is another request for conditional use authorization to establish a formula retail limited restaurant doing business as as joe in the juice on 2213 fillmore street two thousand square feet with 1325 often the ground floor and one plus in the basement within the upper fillmore commercial district ate height and bulk district the space was occupied by another formula retail known as bagels not requiring a conditional use authorization when it started the operation, however, one change from formula retail use to another is a intense

indication under the planning code section there are a new conditional use authorization is required the building envelope will not be expanded approximately, one and 76 existing jumping by a juice with 14 in development around the world the third location 1 other market street and 301 howard street the formula retail use can be found for your consideration to date one letter of support from the fillmore merchants association and no phone calls or e-mails in opposition to approve with conditions this that concludes my presentation. >> thank you project sponsor. >> hello thank you for your time i won't use which of that i come

from copenhagen and had a jumping by a ohio we have 10 or 11 stores in the u.s. and this will be the first neighborhood store we're exciting about coming here and we think that san francisco is something we need puts our brand and connect to from copenhagen we're hoping for you to - >> if you have any questions. >> if we do after public comment we'll call you back up thank you. >> opening it up for public comment there are no speaker cards any speakers on this item. >> seeing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. >> commissioner paskin-jordan. >> this project it seems to me a like for a like in terms of

change in proprietorship i manifesting. >> second. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> second a great addition to the part of fillmore street and happy to see them open up. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve that with conditions on that a motion commissioner fong commissioner johnson commissioner koppel commissioner moore and commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and commissioners that places under our request for discretionary review for item 19, 578 44th avenue discretionary review. >> good afternoon david lindsey department staff enough time a one story vertical edition and to the rear of a two-story single-family that was

analyzed by the department staff not a expansion under the planning code 317 the second property on the east side near anza in the outer richmond the deep lot is developed with a second story constructed in 1915 the lot is a key lot as it is outside lot line abuts the lot lines on anza one owned by the dr requester the the subject property in the immediate neighborhoods are zoned rh-1 and characterized by two-story single-family homes constructed from the 1980s through the 1940s slopes from geary lfld in governed to anza in the south south of the the subject property are two duplexes one

and corner of 44 and anza the department has received 29 letters in opposition to the project that were submitted and included in the packet since the packet were about sent out one additional letter of opposition has been received i'll submit to the planning commission secretary for the record. >> the dr requester is fred who owns 5232 anza the rear property line abuts the southern lot line of the the subject property his concerns are as follows: that the project negatively effects his light and privacy that boxes in the industrial properties and cut them off in the mid block open space and this the project is inconsistent with the visible

character in terms of scale and architecture following this residential design team reviewed the project and requested that the project manager address the dr requesters concerns related to scale and loss of access to the mid block open space including the elimination of a project 9 foot one story horizontal addition and that a 5 and a half foot setback to grade along the south side of the the subject property the project sponsor revised it and the revised plans are what the commission has under front you the residential design team determined the project didn't contain a exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and the dr requesters issues regarding the loss of light and

air and profess are never necessary and desirable as the project setback provides a buffer from the dr requesters rear building wall and the eliminations of the projects original one story horizontal extension maintenance maintains a reasonable assess awhile allowing a large tree in the project sponsors backyard the participating represents not take discretionary review and approve the project as revised okay dr requester please. >> my name is freddie want to thank the commissioner for hearing our case we requested the photos for the existing conditions of interior be submitted in the dr packet they didn't make that i've

included those for your review and then one photo we can put on the slide as those are going in. >> and from the staff can show that. >> the building has been mr. kelly remodeled and is many move in condition as shown by the photos you're looking at the building is although not meet the definition of tantamount to definition essentially a tear down of the existing building we have the demolition calculation and they're close to that and additionally i'll say the foundation er sunnydale part of foundation will be removed ♪ project but we're really here to discuss and make our point that does that building is that

designed to minimize the impacts of air quality and privacy to the neighborhood and the question really is no, it is not what we would like to see a reduction in the air and light being worked out put up unfortunate the west side view from google earthquake earth is obscured we brought this to aid in the discussion the dr requester has to parallels we've note to cases before the commission the first one being worked out 567 are 47th avenue which was revolting the neighborhood setback that again is 3 blocks from us we're asking is for the setbacks that the

original may 16 rdt hearing was i'm in complete agreement in the dr that i just mentioned then addressed to be implemented on this project and the second project we think that is cross to say in terms of it's key lot feature at the address of 20, 1 street and 19th street we have additional photos for this as well this is a picture of a rendering of model and as david lindsey so eloquently the saving of the tree is of primer portions it is

part of strong block presence as you can see from the photo, however, the position of tree relative to the condition will interact into the building okay other site photos if so a 3-d model of that - i have for the commission the lot view of photos i'd like to handout and to you guys to look at the 3-d model in perspective okay as you can see in the perspective view the light and air dam that will result on our neighbors lot 25 as you can see in the picture victor lou that sent in a picture his backyard had been in a courtyard so hard to mingle

what he'll be looking at what we brought up in the second dr requester your attention to exhibit b from the checklist setback rear should have 5 feet depth on the second story this building does not have i have slides for that as well there are a number of xhifkt at the preplanning meeting but in the drawings in your packet and the model that will have documentation and finally i've also brought models to show what we believe would be helpful to reduce the air quality effects thank you, sir, your time is up. >> you have a two minute

rebuttal. >> project sponsor we should take public comment. >> i'm sorry in support of dr. >> public support for the dr and in opposition to the project. >> seeing none, oh, one please step up ma'am. >> hello, i'm sue i live down the street from this project i really enjoy living in the outer richmond that is possibly the most suburban area of san francisco feature backyards, shrubberies everyone and small houses that go with that those homes will be larger and take some of the ambiance of the small houses and plus probably

leave out trees and bidders much larger than we currently enjoy that's all thank you for your attention. >> any other public speakers aim seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners thank you for your time i am the architect of the project my name is grant lee in response to the dr requesters comments on setbacks we've after dr requester residential design team had additional comments for us which we agreed to all the comments we put the setback back to 5 foot 6

to rehabilitate the conditions and setback from third story for the remainder of the project the neighborhood pattern is mixed from this google area view that is the case they're other houses shown with the red arrows that go beyond what our addition it proposing in addition as you can see that with the blue arrows there is a number of properties that have a 3 foot setback a combination of 5 and 3 feet on our side of our property it is south and in terms of the subject at the part of our revisions was in response to the dr requester and the neighbors desire to keep that tree that is something that

a very important to them and we want to be supportive of that as you can see from this google overhead from our property the expansion of the property will cut off you know approximately an eighth of tree the intent to keep the tree as well as a little bit of pruning will be necessary and we are obviously for it otherwise we continually been working with the planners and in good faith we feel that what we designed is within the context of neighborhoods and whereas it is large most of homes in this area are under developed from the early 19 hundreds as the original planner supported no surprisingly in comparison we're

larger thank you any speakers in support of project manager next year against the dr requester for the project and against the dr requester. >> seeing none, dr requester two minute rebuttal. >> the tree is not shown correctly on the massing study that you have i have photos of that as well as shade analysis of building i'd like to pass out. >> on the building including the front facade. >> speak into the micro please. the front facade shows absence 19 not to the third story and want to go drawing your attention to the area shown if i

can show the drawing the noted area is an area where the existing building didn't have a 5 foot set back nor the third story have a setback of 5 feet this will significantly impact lot number 25 victor lous i have another 11 letters from concerned letters supporting our position from the commissioners are interested we have alternative plans and modifications there the light and still leave the house substantially larger than what it is now we're not opposed to the building but are opposed to a housing that is double the size and didn't fit into the neighborhood under the our

conditions. >> project sponsor a two minute rebuttal. >> the renderings which dr requester 0 showing was something that he and maybe folks that know programs might be showing i'm showing the view from guaranteeing maps aerial it is showing what is reflected on our drawings i personally went out to survey the tree i feel comfortable how we've depicted the location of trees one of the properties i don't know the lot number the dr requester referenced but i know that the - the first lot 5244

and i don't know that lot 25 or what have they had a horizontal addition in 1987 between 12 and 15 feet from the rear yard it is hard to game but had a horizontal development on all stories and we're looking for similar opportunities to render our property thank you. >> thank you this portion of the hearing is closed commissioner moore. >> mr. lindsey is that a code compliant project. >> yes. commissioner. >> does the package it is thin given the commissions submittal requirement the 3-d elevation and penetration are an important part to understand the project

it is a description on the typical window section and the reality no information either more are they really other than google things that go makes us more appreciative of the street and the street from which the dr requester is complaining about the question we need to ask ourselves in a smaller scale neighborhood tries to double from - to 3000 square feet what does that do it creates issues that is reflective of the issued and what we consider reasonable densification in an urban environment we're rh-1 the houses are smaller and sensitive on all sides the first one i'll

ask mr. lindsey i'm surprised the rdt didn't push the third story 15 feet away from the front as we last week sat here with great emphasis on that a decision for the one thing the house is large enough the third floor didn't need an extra family room that is the third floor is redesigned around the 15 foot setback on the street has this commission has put up strongly again and again and again as far as the applicant i permanent be do not see the boxing in because 5 block patterns again, we have key lots the project setting back from the property line bans what the rdt is asking for leaves enough

breathing room but information missing to understand the expression as well as on that side i think that makes that harder for the commission to be fair both to the dr requester and the applicant because these things express themselves predimensionally not 2 feet, etc. but including the quality of garden or the separation of planting and fences between the property give us a better idea with that property being worked out on the south side of things 0 i don't think there is a real effect of shadow or light and air because on the south side you don't see overshadows you have cast a shadow but not getting shadows i'm not sure commissioners but to take this

particular thing certain questions i'd like to see answered in education to strongly advising us for a 15 foot setback that would require the dr i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> i mean 15 foot setback a reasonable something we've established and wanted to see talking with schong and we sxhard notes that is another dr we asked to be continued because of the way the lots are arranged it creates a box affect on potrero hill and it has an impact most notably to these houses closet to the big building boxed them in and not a lot ft the reach.

>> if i may i find it i'm not sure i'm reading the drawings correctly it still seems on the north side of addition i'd like to see that note back as well, because south side of adjoining building to the north has windows on this wall and for addition to sit on the property line it is encroaching on the wrooekt room the obtain to give this pop out the setback bodies can benefit from a 5 foot plus calculation >> commissioner moore david lindsey department staff there's a 3 foot setback on the ground story that the addition beyond the adjacent building not. >> that's not- it seems to me with the double line a parapet line in the drawings no line at

all if it comes to the ground. >> which drawing. >> i'm looking at the diaphragm no date it is the second drawings in the set that was submitted as being worked out the one we're looking at for today. >> the proposed site plausibleness dash looks like a opponent on the second floor and that should go to the ground not go all the way to the ground. >> to the ground yes. >> on both sides no popping up of the property line. >> okay. >> i think i looked at the both floor plans that occurs no reason that the amount of square footage in this building already

twice the size of what it is no room to adjust the floor plans to feel confronting with the reduction in the believes. >> commissioner koppel. >> my house is in the is that the i'm the third house off of alienation my tyrannies to the north doesn't have a full length backyard a shallow backyard and literally laboratory the side wall of the house my house gets half of the back of the house and half of the backyard but i mean, the location on the corner sometimes not much you can do about you know what you're seeing in your backyard and i

have a question for staff no demo count sheets or did i miss them. >> they were - i have them here. >> can i take a look. >> thank you. >> exposure. >> i say we continue on the setback on the third story and not change the building on the north side all the way down to the ground by whatever feet that is probably 30 not 5 to match the one story addition

in the building pop out. >> motion to continue or take dr with the modifications. >> i can't make a motion. >> well commissioners certainly if you give the districts to take dr and approve those with the dwithsdz you'll not need come back. >> i make that motion to take dr with the modifications so we'll make that easier on all of us. >> very good. >> second commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve the project with the following moifktdz requiring the 15 set back for the top floor and the notching to go to the ground. >> commissioner fong commissioner johnson no commissioner koppel commissioner moore and is commissioner vice president richards so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 4 to one with commissioner johnson voting

against. >> commissioners that places us on item 20 3009 california street discretionary review. >> excuse me - >> mr. lindsey can i ask a question, please as to your behaving guiding our staff to bring forward the dr can we see a compliance to commissioner wu so it is easier for us not to do we we did but came up with results to hear including the documents where we're looking at apples to apples to be fair to both parties of strum. >> of course. >> thank you good afternoon david lindsey department staff before i begin the presentation i'm going to distribute a plan set that is

been rise by the architect to address an error that is on the plans that are in your packets the error is the depth of the 4 story at the rear since the project rear yard is determined by averaging adjacent building the planning code limit the height of 10 feet for the buildable area to 10 feet it incorrectly shows the fourth floor into the area limited to thirty feet in height the plans i'm san bruno or distributing will reduce the for you by one to comply with the planning code a complete set that replaces the one in your packets the project is a two vertical and one story horizontal at the

single-family homes the project includes the alterations and the garage widening to 10 feet and analyzed by the department staff and not 0 demolition under the planning code 317 the the subject property is on the south side of california street between lyon and baker in the western edition the property is a slightly down standard-sized lot 25 by one hundred feet deep that was constructed in 1887 alterations are stripped away the architectural detailing and it was ultimately determined to be car share exempt under ceqa the building on the the subject property - they're generally three and four story building the building immediately west of the the subject property is a 3 and a half two unit building as a 2 unit two-story building

6 neighbors on the subject block one adjacent neighbor have express support for the project since the packets were sent out last week to additional e-mails have been received in supported i'll submit those to the secretary for the record the dr requester is matthew an owner of 2 thousand 7 to the kelly whitcraft of the the subject property mr. kline's concerns are as follows: the proximately negatively effects his building the upper floating flat with air and privacy and out of scale with the other buildings the residential design team reviewed that prior to neighborhood notification and requested various revisions to the front facade which the revisions were substantially done and reflected

in the plans following the submittal the residential design team reviewed did project in light of the dr and requested it to address the concerns related to privacy that obscure in the bathroom windows and earn lightwell the project sponsor revised it a and with the change they determined that is xheshg and has appropriate lightwells and not create an exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the planning department recommends the commission not take dr and approve as revised. >> thank you dr requester you have 5 minutes. >> we're having a long day and hoping that san francisco will make a nice path forward i have

to distinguish reasons i suggest you take dr for this project a typical. >> speak into the mike please. get the projector. >> a typical corner neighborhood street corner around my neighborhood not a three or four story building another corner here not three or four stories another residential corner this is principally a large unit so the corner lot in this particular block of the western edition are smaller lots one hundred by 25 and to the east you'll see that the first floor building on the corner are 20 by 100 percent this doesn't say a site for privacy and this is a view any immediate lot line the exterior of the side wall an

baker street the sponsors didn't have there she's rh-2 i'm rh-2 and my immediate neighborhood to the left is rh-2 this the right their rh-3 which 37 percent large lot size this the box we're talking about and i'm also to the east of the project sponsor and with the shadow it is take place i assert no four story buildings within the blocks of this project where you have wood-framed construction on rh-2 and nothing complaining to tell me i'm disconnect and that's my assertion this is a precedent than i think the on us to establishment the sponsor - okay. the second issue which i want to talk about that is independent of the first issue the location of the third floor

blockage of this project sponsor for the first to stories no lightwell in the front of me the issue is on the third floor i have a small private stair one kitchen and one living room my bedroom windows face towards the sponsors property a small lightwell okay. if you're looking at the roof line they're proposing to go up with a wall right where my hand is now and above that a fourth floor it is setback away from the property line the issue the side setback of the third floor which matches my only bedroom window against my bred windows not just one bathroom not a guest bath but a laundry facility the idea of matching lightwells

cerebroneighbors can share the light to their valencia and i've built my lightwell and you can - we multiply the loft for both participant in this case the victorian lightwell their matching a substandard with mile substandard lightwell we don't in general have lightwells less than 5 we see them 10 feet and not an interesting situation in my opinion the third story lightwell is short but for a above that is setback if we take off approximately, one hundred and 20 square feet of third floor we have a coordinate of light for the three or four floors that approximately two or three percent of build out hence hence i will probably not be living in this building my

family situation may change but another couple will be living in the upper flat my windows should be for toilets and exhaust fans and hearing bathtubs running and laundry machines and hair driers by taking small memorable mitigation for those particularly utilities like the uppers we can mitigate and have a win-win situation i think that is a small price to pay for the city of san francisco granting this is in most cases an excellent project the ability to build 97 green projects, if you will, sharing the lightwell to a larger lightwell on the third story. >> in my time is benefits the future residents of the upper

market flat and this couple can have to egress. >> anyone in support of dr requester and against the 0 project seeing none, project sponsor 5 minutes. >> hello and thank you this is my husband david mark farrell we bought the house in 2009 about the intentions of remodeling it is a smaller house on the block we've lived in the immediate neighborhood for many years and including me living on the block next door in the house next door this is our family home it fits our growing family needs a baby on the way this summer. >> plan to have a second he work from home full-time a home office my husband worked from home part time and have elderly parents will come and stay with

us and potentially live with us your project has overwhelming support including the dr requester co-owner that has an equal interest in the property and manages the property so those two letters that david lindsey alluded to one from the co-owner from the deferring dr and the tenant the main unit the requester is referring to say vacant i was not doing anything that would harm that our neighbors to the immediate west are in support we met with the immediate neighbors on march third, analyzing and the dr requester and offered a compromise to pay for skylights that were rejected we pulled back the top floor of the house

by 3 feet away from his property the portion of his property the dr requester is concerned about receiving light was overgrown by thick vines you have photos in your packet we've tried repeatedly with the requester we offered i take it compromises cannot get him to meet with us to pull back the lightwell an additional 2 feet frosting the bathroom windows and the plumbing will be done to code that was rejected by the dr requester that's why we're here today and hope you help us have a home that fits our needs i have it photos you can see what we're referring to. >> sfgov go to the overhead and

that was his backyard and this is the top from our roof so until we start doing plans and he started complaining that long overgrowth that is thick vine been there for years if he's concerned about light he could have mitigated that again, the neighbors to the west who were building up to next - the main tenant and the co-owner have equal interests are in full support we urge you to support our project as well thank you. >> dr requester you have a two minute rebuttal. >> i don't think that is about people that is about who is going to be living in the building and what we're leaving for the future of san francisco i've not talked with my neighbors people are different feelings i think the project will be beautiful that will add

value to the neighborhood the main objection i have is an unprecedented 4 stories with an rh-2 boxes me ♪ planning wants to show me the address i've lived here 26 years and anxious to identify any four story build outs on the corner from the planning rules otherwise please speak up yes. i have vines on the roof didn't mean i'm an overview person the location of bathroom is their choice but locating two bathrooms directly adjacent to my only window you'll hear laundry machines and lack of sunshine and not setback properly will obtain experiencing the use of bathrooms i can't stop that but

small mitigation that's building code you can't use a carton for a laundry machine has to be per planning code but not allowing you to put that 3 feet 9 inches away from my bedroom i'll have laundry where approximately my hand is not right for san francisco should be a lightwell as their personal became exhausted corridor two ventilation fans and laundry drops and possibly duck from the kitchen below it is good adjacent to my bedroom you think you can mitigate it cheaply from home depot it is $12 minor things for future residents for the building thank you very much

>> william the project architect 5 second comment did a 5 story building my clients met me 3083 california center beautiful victorian 6 or 7 houses on the same block and substantially large houses on that block. >> month no, no thanks thank you okay. that concludes this portion. >> the project sponsor has a minute and a half if you want rebuttal. >> so i want to comment on the ventilation of the bombards when we talked about the code our understanding of the code we have to vent it up and away from his unit not just out to the

side i think that if our offer to him we've covered that we'll take care of all that ventilation up instead of out so - we're happy to agree to that if that's in the code that's our understanding of the code. >> i also forgot to include not only the co-owner of dr property to have equal interests he manages the day to day operations of the property so and she's in complete couldn't make that today that's why i sent the other letter thank you. >> that concludes this portion of the hearing commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much so i it is interesting i have no comment on the dr requesters concerns as in their presented in the packet normally i don't think any of the facility issues are exceptional or extraordinary

but have an issue with a 60 percent increase in squeamish negative impact an rh-2 district we don't have planning code or special adopted policy that says we are requiring projects to maximize their zoning but it has been a trend of strong trend of the commission over the past year or too so i don't know where the commission will go with the merits of project but i'm having issues i'm not sure what the dr requester is talking about and actually in our planning code but she wants to make note i have a strong issue with that other than everything is fine. >> commissioner moore. >> i'll share commissioner johnson's concern we need to see what is the reasonable expansion

i believe that adding a fourth floor we're over sizings the building in which that occurs when you look at the elevation drawing left and right it looks unusual given the architectural treatment of the alteration like i said earlier mr. lindsey in this project of the for you

there is enough there's enough to create the type of unit what the family is aspiring to a fourth floor particularly in light of what we're seeing those expansions of the rh-2

we have a problem we identified a few weeks since is balcony is held between the parapet the portion that is roof should be labeled as unoccupied roof with a parapet you can expand that blatantly with a small railing to the building edge those teaches details matter when our trying to create consistency thought how to create the balcony, etc., etc. in summary i never understood the second set of drawings this is different from the original packet and we - >> of course the second set that was distributed today was mark

farrell to correct the one error at the fourth floor. >> i'm personally not prepared given all the missing parts including did over sizings the building in some areas that relates to share lightwells to support this project and i'm curious what other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >> a question for the project architect how possible would it be to leave the project as proposed changing it to two unit and o implying the kerri with the lightwell. >> that's i i cannot answer that i don't own the property - but i think that i've been here in the summer and arranged something you're proposing on

trader street at the bottom floor added a substantial in-law unit quite frankly i had that in the back of my head that will be something i can't - it would be very feasible they have a lot of square footage and get all the areas that commissioner moore brought up some of the top decks with the planning that in order to get my client here to respond 0 to that question thank you. >> it is something we can do but to clarify commissioner moore's and commissioner johnson about face our house is a small footprint on the block and as i said, i work from home that's my office and my husband works from homes home that's another office we're expecting a

baby on july 2nd hope to have another baby my dad has alzheimer's they'll probably live with us hence the elevator and presented that's why we have every element an answer can there be an in-law unit yes, we have another piece of property we've been holding off the hours market we can't wait to move into our house to be putting something into rental stock in san francisco so there you have it. >> so thank you very much it is interesting we had a meeting with the executives officers this past week ms. jocelyn and talked about creating a policy on residential design because for dr projects sometimes roof deck were mentioned and sometimes not but focused on the overall if we

took dr establish a policy so everybody is treated the same you'll wonder about the rules you get caught in the good job let - i support having a second unit you'll be able to use rent it but such a large expansion it calls for i think an rh-2 an additional unit even if african-american an in-law unit could be small our policies has been we want to focus on digestion and happy you're having a family someone in hayes valley took the dr and cut off the fourth floor i'd rather than have the additional square footage and have it continued to come back with a

revised project commissioner koppel. >> with all the comments and consideration i'll move to continue. >> to what date? >> along or 0 how long will the architect need i need about three weeks. >> any time after that i assumed we want a 3-d for that. >> yes. >> i don't do the 3/we have to go back and forth and get them correct it takes a week and a half it is an awful good idea if you need to get a complete packet i wanted to include the lightwell combinations commissioner can we get specification on the lightwell do you want it is not the third floor setback the same depth as

the first floor or. >> okay. >> i thought we offered that to the dr requester the additional two feet he turned it down but, yes absolutely take that into the conversation. >> one second in the revised project so show where the impacts are in the wall or straight up versus. >> we'll have to bring a plumber. >> that's the intention i took the square footage out of my bathroom they didn't center to smell my drier. >> commissioner moore. >> clarify the question of lightwells is there an issue of lightwells would like to know exactly where the location of window the windows on the adjoining property in some cases what is behind the windows i believe that the large existing

lightwell needs to be matched in kind we know what the rules for matching in kind means but an exact location of windows opening in the adjoining building. >> commissioner that is shown on the slide. >> i see a basically a skapt notch. >> i colored coded that it is crystal clear it is confusing the elevation one east and one west but boy i think i don't a 3rgd job i show more than the doted line and tried to color code so planning can understand we're happy to work on that. >> the drawings i'm looking to be indicate in our proposed plans which at that moment only show a single line a hinlt of what the window opens but we're clear i don't want to go to the

reduced tiny small buildings and have to reach across to the building plans. >> i was trying them on elevation you want them on the plans. >> commissioner johnson. >> i'd like to congratulate project sponsor for having a child that is hilarious you're saying you want number two, that is a crazy thought crazy talk. >> that's the new conversation in the planning commission. >> anyways i acknowledge your given us your family history the only reason i didn't verbally state it before as part of my deliberation we often have project sponsors who will themselves or always be brought up what they plan to do with the property or the family circumstances that is a little

bit using that because sometimes the project sponsor wants us to consider that i tried hard to be obviously i appreciate but at the same time, i wanted to hold firm to a policy we have stepped in consistent on discussing in the last couple of years here and i think that is really important and i personally i know the architect can go and look at the projects the commissioners may not agree with me i think that if you want to maintain the use of that headline up for the property you want to find a way to do that even if it requires not having as many setbacks and getting two units the assumption you'll need more space to have two units so be fair to our neighbors by the way, take into consideration that we understand there is trade offs one of the reasons we like to ask for density or maximize missing the zoning.

>> commissioner koppel. >> so you're clear on the two units we're looking in spirit for you know square footage equity not 90 percent of house 20 percent and a tiny little closet for the second unit we're trying as much as you can to make the quote second unit liveable as opposed to the large percentage of square footage. >> one thing before we go on i was talking with a developer over lunch monday and he was saying you know, i have this big house in a certain certain neighborhood an rh-2 i want to expand and planning says i need to put in a second united we're up here saying we want to see that this is admirable if you can do that and in code but another populated bucket list

item. >> this particular project hospital hsa been in the department before - >> and commissioner moore was there a direction. >> i have no problem with the high parapet i want to see a note on the drawings that the movement that is unoccupied the ventriclar dein violation to all of a sudden use the entire roof the urban opted out roof can't be used as a back up. >> thank you the other question i'd like to ask you've been sharing our family stories will be you have a dialogue where the colors i'll appreciate that. >> thank you commissioners the date april 13th i don't hear